Skip to main content

About your Search

20130209
20130209
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
? the pentagon. >> we're only a few weeks away from this. >> it doesn't make any political sense. >> it would be brutal for everybody. >> devastatiing effects on the economy. >> pushes us into a second recession, something so terri e terrible -- >> all right. settle down. >> they recognize that the sequester is a bad idea. >> i don't like the sequester. >> we see the republicans playing games. >> this is the wrong time for sequest sequestration. >> both sides are sort of okay with it. >> doing nothing is easier than doing something. >> republicans say cuts but no taxes. >> these cuts cost job. >> they don't even want to talk about it. >> who are the monsters who came up with the sequestration idea? >> guess what, they all support it. congress put it into place to force themselves to agree. >> dumbe esest blame game in washington. >>> it's time for another round of republican would you rather. we'll call this the sequester edition. today's question, would you rather go up against al qaeda or grover norquist? republican senator lindsey graham said al qaeda would love the defense cuts in the se
limiting military pay increases which effectively decreases troop's salaries. our pentagon correspondent barbara starr's got the details. barbara, what's going on? >> you know, wolf, here in washington, nothing can be more sensitive than pay for america's armed forces, but the troops are looking at being caught right in the middle of it all. >> thank you, sir. >> reporter: the troops usually are happy to see defense secretary panetta, smiles and handshakes all around. but days before he leaves office, panetta has bad news. he's proposing less money in their paycheck next year. panetta, a savvy washington operative in budget politics, is leaving it to congress to figure out how not to cut pay and keep thousands of defense employees on the job. >> we will furlough as many as 800,000 dod civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. don't think that's going to impact on our economy? >> reporter: the recommendation to slow the military pay raise will put troops in the middle of that political fight between congress and the president over spending.
are expected to come from the pentagon. a conversation about the government's use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. our guest is christopher anders. then we'll talk with judith for the national partnership. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> having observed a steady improvement in the opportunities and well being of our citizens, i can report to you that the state of this youthful union is good. >> once again with keeping with time honored tradition i come to report to you on the state of the union. i'm pleased to report that america is much improved and there is good reason to believe that improve will continue. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union. not the state of your government but of your american community and set forth our responsibilities in the words of our founders to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers, yet the state of our union has never been stronger. >> it is becau
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
cuts scheduled to take effect march 1. half the cuts are from the pentagon. we will discuss that with ray locker. and a conversation about the use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. then we will talk about the 22 anniversary of the family and medical leave act. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, former president bill clinton speaks to a gathering of house democrats. new secretary of state john kerry meets with the canadian foreign minister. then a military farewell for leon panetta. senator ben cardin talks to employees at the national institutes of health. >> first lady helen taft on discussing politics. >> i had always had the satisfaction of knowing almost as much he about the politics and intricacies of any situation. i think any woman can discuss with her husband topics of national interest. i became familiar with more than politics. >> helen taft, whose husband, william howard taft, was the only man to serve as president and supreme court justice. c-span is new original series, first ladies, image and influence. produced with t
the pentagon thinks they do not want or need, whether it they happen to be built in their districts. there is always plenty of room. as i understand it, the idea of the sequestration and originated with the president and his budget director, mr. lew. that is how they came up with this concept. republicans should simply let the thing become a fact. it is the only opportunity we have to make the present make any cuts at all. he seems to be so opposed to spending cuts and is only interested in finding tax and revenue. in my personal opinion, what we need to do is step back and take a look at our military and our commitments. we have bases in europe that have no reason to be there, certainly not in the numbers we are. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. ray locker? guest: we have a lot of military commitments all over the world. do we need to maintain a base in germany, for example? we could lessen our footprint there. there is a base on the islands in the atlantic that are controlled by portugal. we could dial that all presence there. if things get bad enough and there
he knows and doesn't know about the pentagon because he didn't know much. why are the democrats going to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so
in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go over the border into turkey every day. and it's very easy for pkk fighters, kurdish fighters to meld into those refugees, to go across the border and carry out terrorists attacks insidef tuey. no government in
to some of the employees, civilian employees of the pentagon and some other places. the 85 billion in cuts is through the rest of the fiscal year through september 30th and we're not even talking a full year. it's 50/50 between the defense cuts and the discretionary am doestic spending cuts and the warnings that we're hearing from experts on national security are very severe and vehement. they have told us that this will be a very significant damage. >> let's put the list up here, alex. the white house put out this fact sheet yesterday on the most damaging effects of the cuts that are supposed to go into effect march 1st. 17,000 education jobs at risk. 70,000 kids being kicked off head start. nearly 400,000 mentally ill patients not receiving health care and small business loan guarantees being cut up to $540 million, roughly. the white house did not mention the massive military cuts. what was the strategy there? >> well, look. i think that for the white house, the strategy here is to emphasize that basically every american would be impacted in some way. if you emphasize defense cuts and i
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)